Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-23-2020, 09:18 AM - 2 Likes   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,168
This resonates with me. I had tried a k1 for a month and found it too big when paired with a 2.8 24-70 zoom. The path I had decided on was to wait on the K-3iii and then likely but a KP in the wake of the new camera. However... My dad bought me a used Sony A7rII. Due to coronavirus concerns it's still with him, so I haven't gotten to try it yet.

I also have a set of m43 gear and a compact sensor Panasonic LX-7. Each had had a place in my photography. Recently I've spent the month of November using only the LX-7.

Best in terns of image quality akso has to be tempered by how the images will be viewed and if they will be printed at what size? Carrying size and complexity also have a role. My dad's switched down from apsc, to m43, to 1" (rx100 iv)

11-23-2020, 09:37 AM - 6 Likes   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,171
Never have to worry What is worst, What is Best

@BigMackCam, thanks for your interesting and engaging essay. My thinking mirrors your theme.

May I add a few thoughts?

I think that by emphasizing the gear, we risk losing sight of the 'bigger picture' -- that is, the outcomes that we hope to achieve in our photography. This echos your idea of 'context'.

Outcomes
Desirable outcomes may vary from person to person, but these might apply to us hobbyists:
  • Enjoyable shooting experience
  • Ease and convenience in post processing
  • Rewarding images
  • Compliments from family, friends, photo club members, etc
  • Manageable impact on our personal or family budget.
For professionals, I would add increased revenue and profit, client satisfaction and repeat business, and referrals.

So, one should ask, "Which camera format would likely maximize the outcomes that I desire?" Since you mention the new K-3 III, we might reflect on Ricoh Imaging's emphasis on the shooting experience, and that aspect interests me. While my K-3 II has served me well, I would love an enhanced shooting experience in each of the tens of thousands of times that I will hold the camera up to my eye. Above all, it's the overall experience I value most in my photographic hobby.

It's gratifying when others compliment one's pictures. My local camera club (Camera Club of Ottawa -- celebrating 125 years) holds regular 'slide' and 'print' competitions. And guess what? We never learn what camera systems were used to produce any of the images; I'm sure the gear ranges from camera phones to point and shoots to larger format sensors and film. I've managed to achieve "Awards of Excellence" and "Honourable Mentions" for some of my submissions, and I'm not convinced that I would achieve recognition more frequently from a full frame camera.

Achieving these outcomes depends on a number of factors, not only the gear. For example, to improve my shooting experience in the c-c-c-cold Canadian winters, should I invest in a new camera, or should I look for a better clothing system to keep me warm and allow better manipulation of the camera? Could I afford both?

Focus on the Output
With respect to the final output of our endeavours, consider the various elements in the chain from the subject to the display of a finished image. The photographer controls many of these elements. If a photographer is keen to improve their output, I would suggest that several key areas should be addressed: the subject (e.g., selection, lighting, composition); the camera system; the user's knowledge and skill in using the gear; colour management; image processing; digital display; and printing (e.g., media selection, inks, framing, ambient lighting). Indeed, the camera sensor format and system play a vital role, but it's not the only element in the chain.

Worrying about What is worst or What is Best
In considering what is "best," I often think our discussions generally neglect a methodical approach to the question. Some of us might claim a couple of benefits -- the cost is lower, the IQ is higher, the gear is smaller, the shadows are less noisy, it's got a flip screen. But, as you imply, "best" really depends on the importance that individuals place on various criteria and the compromises that they're willing to accept to arrive at their 'sweet spot'. These criteria may include:
  • Cost
  • Dimensions and mass/weight (affecting portability, handling)
  • Image Quality
  • Lens availability
  • File size (affecting data storage, processing speed)
  • Operability and convenience of use
  • User experience
In the final analysis, a user needs to be happy with their gear and their shooting experience. Some folks will place a large importance on cost, while others might strive for superior IQ at any cost. As you say, it's up to each individual to decide their personal objectives and choose accordingly.

In my case, I've been happy with my APS-C K-3 II. Because most of my photo sessions are outdoors, including city walks and trail hikes, I place a high importance on compact, lightweight equipment that allows me to attain a pretty good output while achieving my desired outcomes.

- Craig

Last edited by c.a.m; 11-29-2020 at 04:20 PM. Reason: grammar
11-23-2020, 10:13 AM - 4 Likes   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 1,652
Many of you seem to have an idea what format you prefer. How I envy this. I really do.

For personal use I can change my mind on a daily basis, Similarly for what lens type I prefer. What is clear is that when I'm wondering around looking for something to capture I nearly always regret the choice of bodies/lenses I made when I left home. Plus I often get distracted with the totally pointless niggle in my subconscious trying to convince me of the ridiculous notion that my photography would benefit from another lens. It won't. Nor would it if I bought another camera (not counting a 645z, of course ;-)) . I'll be sticking my fingers in my ears, shutting my eyes and humming loudly until Black Bl***** Friday is over. Can't wait ...
11-23-2020, 10:25 AM - 2 Likes   #19
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,046
Nicely said. In my case, I can only have one system. It gets way too expensive running multiple systems. I'll make do with what I have whether is be m43, APS-C, or FF. If the K-3III gets a massive AF.C upgrade, I'll definitely "pay to play". My next major camera & lens purchases will be around November or December of 2021. Hopefully Ricoh gets my money.

11-23-2020, 11:07 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 326
QuoteOriginally posted by Bertrand3000 Quote
Crop has advantages compared to Full Frame :
- Crop factor means the camera will have an advantage when it comes to telephoto
- Crop sensor means deeper depth of field for the same aperture / focal length
- Crop body and crop lenses are usually lighter, and will give much less strain on your neck
I think for me best is the 24x36 sensor. To shoot portraits I need 70mm to 100mm lens so the faces are not too curvy or too flat. Best is the 85mm lens. I can use 85mm in my 16x24 sensor K5 but then the background would be too close to the subject and too narrow because I would be forced to be more distant from the model. The model would not pop up. In most times I do not have the available space to back step to frame the model. You can see for yourself the differences of the two sensors: just use a K1 with the 77mm limited or the 85mm. Fill the frame so that the model appears mainly in the frame and the background is flattering first in 24x36 mode. Then switch to 16x24, step back and fill the frame in the same analogy of the model to the frame. You will see that the background will not be as flattering or no flattering at all. If you choose to use a 56mm lens in 16x24 for the same angle as the 85mm in 24x36, the background would seem far away and wide as the 24x36 sensor with the 85mm but the face of the model would not look natural, it would be a little but noticeable curvy. If I want to shoot sports or birds in flying I can always use a 24x36 sensor in 16x24 mode. I can afford the extra bulk and weight of a 24x36 camera and lenses as long as I have the benefits. I am waiting for the K-1 used prices to fall down so I can complement my K-5.
11-23-2020, 11:13 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,976
QuoteOriginally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Quote
Nicely said. In my case, I can only have one system. It gets way too expensive running multiple systems. I'll make do with what I have whether is be m43, APS-C, or FF. If the K-3III gets a massive AF.C upgrade, I'll definitely "pay to play". My next major camera & lens purchases will be around November or December of 2021. Hopefully Ricoh gets my money.
Yeah, if I *do* get that K-70 (hey, it would basically be the first stroke of luck I get in 2020! ) I'd just not sell the Tamron 17-50/2.8 I've had parked for a year because I'm too lazy to put it up for sale and use it with the 55-300 for hiking if I don't feel like carrying too much stuff.

Otherwise, I'll just use FF for the foreseeable future.
11-23-2020, 11:40 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 673
This thread touches on a lot of things - I don't know that a K-1 II vs. K-3 III comparison is the same as an APS-C vs. full frame comparison - which perhaps wasn't quite what the OP meant, but it might be read that way. Of course, if you have no interest in full frame, purchasing a K-1 II is a questionable choice as you carry 200 grams more than you need, strictly speaking, but I could also see someone simply preferring the 15 megapixel APS-C output from that sensor over something more recent.

However, I think the case for APS-C being the most versatile digital format is clear. You can achieve reasonably shallow depth of field, you can get nice portraits (Micro Four Thirds... possible, but not effortless imo), and you can shoot wildlife (full frame, not so much). If you want to narrow it down to birds, then M43 is ahead again, after a brief period of Nikon 1 also making an impact. You can also do autofocus reasonably well on APS-C. Often, full frame cameras have simply re-used AF modules from APS-C, so there was no effective AF advantage to using FF. If you want a brighter optical viewfinder, then of course, all other things being equal, FF wins.

However, as I've said before, the Sony 61 megapixel sensor makes it clear that a hybrid FF/APS-C camera may be the end point, and the a7C brings that future rather close - it will only be a short while before a full frame camera, similarly compact to an APS-C one (which Pentax does very well with DSLRs), completely bridges both worlds and becomes the (interim?) standard.

11-23-2020, 11:57 AM - 2 Likes   #23
Veteran Member
Qwntm's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 856
QuoteOriginally posted by BarryE Quote
Many of you seem to have an idea what format you prefer. How I envy this. I really do.

For personal use I can change my mind on a daily basis, Similarly for what lens type I prefer. What is clear is that when I'm wondering around looking for something to capture I nearly always regret the choice of bodies/lenses I made when I left home. Plus I often get distracted with the totally pointless niggle in my subconscious trying to convince me of the ridiculous notion that my photography would benefit from another lens. It won't. Nor would it if I bought another camera (not counting a 645z, of course ;-)) . I'll be sticking my fingers in my ears, shutting my eyes and humming loudly until Black Bl***** Friday is over. Can't wait ...
OMG!! I'm not the only one!!!


Preach it, brother! AMEN!
11-23-2020, 12:14 PM - 1 Like   #24
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
thus implying that a crop sensor camera is, by default, inferior. I'm paraphrasing and interpreting, of course, but these are the broad thrusts in the posts I've read.
Your interpretation reflects my impression as well.

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
All information thus far suggests the K-3III is going to be expensive compared to previous crop sensor models, and it's highly unlikely I'll buy it in the near future - but that's not because it's priced so close to the full frame K-1II... Frankly, that isn't even a consideration, because I've already established why APS-C is more appropriate for my needs.
I am in a similar space, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. If Pentax were to offer a 24Mpx FF camera, I would likely bite in that I consider 24Mpx resolution to be more than adequate and the sweet spot for the format. In the short term, what I am really wanting is an option to replace my K-3 and no, the KP is not that option. I simply want equivalent build and features. If I get superior performance as a side effect, that would be cool, but not at a premium price point.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 11-23-2020 at 12:27 PM.
11-23-2020, 12:28 PM - 3 Likes   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Kevin B123's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,162
My skin in this game. I have a K-1ii and sold my K-3ii to get it, I can't afford endless gear. My K-50 & 18-135 still serve me well.

One aspect that is often overlooked in these discussions is the shear experience of using nice gear. The K-1ii is a joy every time I pick it up, and that is not conditional on getting a great image from it. It's the same way with the limited lenses.

From what I have read, the user experience is going to be enhanced by the K-3iii in much the same way that I feel about the K-1ii. Those wanting to stay with APS-C are going to be in for a treat, and I look forward to the user reviews.
11-23-2020, 12:29 PM   #26
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by MetalUndivided Quote
That is simply not correct, unless you're shooting from different distances to get the same frame.
That is what we generally tend to do...compose the shot to the frame, right?


Steve
11-23-2020, 12:33 PM   #27
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The benefits of full frame are primarily better dynamic range at base iso (Photos to Photons puts it about 1.3 EV between the KP and K-1 II at iso 100),
Of course, both P2P and DxOMark apply an artificial step up for FF over APS-C even when the actual sensor output is identical.


Steve
11-23-2020, 12:37 PM   #28
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
The D500, a 20MP APS-C camera, had a $2000 MSRP when it was released...
You stole the keystrokes write from the tips of my fingers. From what I can tell, the target for the K-3iii (tweetwee?) is the D500. If they match or even come close, that will be a very big achievement. Pity that rumor is the D500's neck is on the block in Nikon's incorporation of a mirrorless line.


Steve
11-23-2020, 12:50 PM - 3 Likes   #29
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Hidrieus Quote
I think for me best is the 24x36 sensor. To shoot portraits I need 70mm to 100mm lens so the faces are not too curvy or too flat.
Interestingly, focal length has little to do with flatness of features for portraits. Subject distance (another word for perspective) is the determining factor. Shoot 55mm or 58mm on APS-C and you get the basically the same perspective for a given composition as with the traditional 80mm or 85mm portrait lens. I could make similar claims regarding nature of background, but not today.

Still, though, if the kit you have fits your needs, shoot with the kit you have.


Steve
11-23-2020, 01:00 PM - 2 Likes   #30
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,802
I will never go back to aps-c from full frame. I shoot vintage glass. Vintage glass is full frame glass. Maybe I will get a Ricoh GR at some point for a pocket-able camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, benefits, body, camera, crop, dslr, ff, film, fisheye, format, frame, k-3iii, k1, k10d, kp, lens, minutes, pentax, photography, quality, sensor, situation, size, system, tripod, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another my maybe-right understanding of APS-C camera vs Full Frame talkskiwon Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 8 10-11-2019 02:25 PM
K-r relevance today mars76 Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 01-07-2015 05:05 AM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame mickyd Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-12-2013 07:14 PM
K-r ff "relevance" poll ccd333 Pentax K-r 16 06-23-2011 11:36 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:11 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top